BoxRec

Can't believe these dirty yanks had the down right cheek to protest just tell your fighter to get up before 9.5

Dead Mouse wrote:http://www.BS.com/bbboc-explai ... est--68408

I hate to say I (well, we: Insider etc.) told you so, but we did.

Sorry about the new thread. BoxRec have changed Search to 'Not at this time'. It has new features. An inability to search being one of them.

Wasn't rocket science was it. Well done he Board for clearing it up in an official statement though. More of the same please.

The widespread criticisms—and thus your responses to them—missed the real problem with the count in my view. The rules are fairly clear and I don't see how someone could read them and still complain that the outcome unjust because Scott was up or because the ref never counted ten.

The issue for me was that the referee immediately stopped the fight after reaching 9 (i.e. 9out and not 9.......out), meaning his count was roughly a second short; Scott had a good chance of meeting the criteria for being up had the count been an appropriate length, and I think it was unfair he wasn't given the full opportunity to do so.

And to pre-empt a common response I've received—yes, rising so late was imprudent.

My problem with this is that Smith says Edwards deemed Scott in no position to defend himself. Give us a break.

The Board have refused to engage with the real problem with the count - there was NOT a full second between '9' and 'out'. Therefore, counting Scott out was a mistake. If the ref had decided that Scott was unable to continue when he rose, he should not have counted him out for a KO - it would have been a TKO. In any case, there were no signs that the ref made an effort to check that Scott was able to continue once back on his feet.

Very disingenuous reasoning on the part of the BBBC, and it makes me very suspicious as to why they've wheeled out a logically flimsy explanation of why the ref's decision was correct.

Rematch; and let Malik have a 20 count.

Dead Mouse wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Can't believe these dirty yanks had the down right cheek to protest just tell your fighter to get up before 9.5

It’s similar to the withdrawal method. Get it wrong by a single second and she’s up the duff and you’re the one stumbling about in a state of confusion and outrage.

It was a whole load of pap to be honest - everyone in the boxing world knows you have to be ready to continue at 10 if you're rising at 9 you arent going to be fit to continue at 10 and will be counted out regardless of if you are injured. Yes the ref could have let him continue as he didnt look to be hurt and given him a little longer but his job is to ref to the letter of the law. Scott and his team made a massive error of judgement simple as. If they have an issue with it have a rematch im sure chisora and FW would be happy to have him in the UK after he defeats another fighter on allegedly first.

When i ref i wave it off at the same time as saying 10 , that way you know theyve had the full count , saves any confusion , not exactly rocket science , whilst the laws of the count were effectively correct , the 9 and the out always leaves it open to debate .

Everything is open to debate with chancers; there were all sorts of accusations (on here), it was ridiculous.

I agree with Crusader and Dookus, the count between 9 and out was way too quick, it was as if the ref saw him start to rise on 9 and waved his arms to call it off as soon as he could, before Scott was fully risen.

I do also agree that it was stupid to rise so late.

Dead Mouse wrote:

crusader wrote:The widespread criticisms—and thus your responses to them—missed the real problem with the count in my view. The rules are fairly clear and I don't see how someone could read them and still complain that the outcome unjust because Scott was up or because the ref never counted ten.

The issue for me was that the referee immediately stopped the fight after reaching 9 (i.e. 9out and not 9.......out), meaning his count was roughly a second short; Scott had a good chance of meeting the criteria for being up had the count been an appropriate length, and I think it was unfair he wasn't given the full opportunity to do so.

And to pre-empt a common response I've received—yes, rising so late was imprudent.

It was nine and then wave. If it went 10 and then wave you'd be looking at 11. Scott looked at his corner before starting to rise, a corner guy spent most of the post-fight time shouting: “It was efffing eight!” I reckon they were a second behind the count. This plus the fact they didn’t clarify anything before the fight suggests it was either amateur night, complacency or they were shocked when he went down, which takes us back to professionalism.

The ref’s not inside the fighter’s head, he has a judgement to make and has to gauge it on what’s happening. A fighter not being able to time the count properly is something they’ll look out for.

Thanks for the info about how many counts are to be issued, but that's a red-herring. I'm disputing how quickly the referee went from nine to waving. There is to be a second from count to count, which the referee properly followed for the first nine counts, but upon reaching nine he immediately stopped the bout as Scott was rising, instead of signalling the bout's termination a second after counting nine.

To illustrate, a count of 7......8......9........out/wave is appropriate.
The referee counted 7......8......9.out, thereby cutting a ten count roughly a second short.

Maybe the referee thought Scott was unfit to continue and thus didn't mean to issue a full count, but I think stopping the bout because a fighter rises late in the count when he otherwise shows no signs of being unable to continue can justifiably be considered questionable too.

And?

Of course fighters can be counted out when rising if they're doing so while the referee reaches out/ten/whatever you want to call it. The issue is that the referee reached that point too quickly, counting 7......8........9.out and not 7......8......9.......out.

dookus wrote:The Board have refused to engage with the real problem with the count - there was NOT a full second between '9' and 'out'. Therefore, counting Scott out was a mistake. If the ref had decided that Scott was unable to continue when he rose, he should not have counted him out for a KO - it would have been a TKO. In any case, there were no signs that the ref made an effort to check that Scott was able to continue once back on his feet.

Very disingenuous reasoning on the part of the BBBC, and it makes me very suspicious as to why they've wheeled out a logically flimsy explanation of why the ref's decision was correct.

It is recorded as a TKO

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

And on and on and on....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So5UswF ... ata_player

taffytoon wrote:

dookus wrote:The Board have refused to engage with the real problem with the count - there was NOT a full second between '9' and 'out'. Therefore, counting Scott out was a mistake. If the ref had decided that Scott was unable to continue when he rose, he should not have counted him out for a KO - it would have been a TKO. In any case, there were no signs that the ref made an effort to check that Scott was able to continue once back on his feet.

Very disingenuous reasoning on the part of the BBBC, and it makes me very suspicious as to why they've wheeled out a logically flimsy explanation of why the ref's decision was correct.

It is recorded as a TKO

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

OK. In that case I'd like to know what the ref saw in Scott's bearing that made him feel he was unable to continue - glazed eyes, wobbling on his feet, unable to respond to commands?

dookus wrote:

taffytoon wrote:

dookus wrote:The Board have refused to engage with the real problem with the count - there was NOT a full second between '9' and 'out'. Therefore, counting Scott out was a mistake. If the ref had decided that Scott was unable to continue when he rose, he should not have counted him out for a KO - it would have been a TKO. In any case, there were no signs that the ref made an effort to check that Scott was able to continue once back on his feet.

Very disingenuous reasoning on the part of the BBBC, and it makes me very suspicious as to why they've wheeled out a logically flimsy explanation of why the ref's decision was correct.

It is recorded as a TKO

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

OK. In that case I'd like to know what the ref saw in Scott's bearing that made him feel he was unable to continue - glazed eyes, wobbling on his feet, unable to respond to commands?

The fact he was unable to be upright and in a position to defend himself at 9.5 seconds I'm guessing. The only crux of the matter is the time from 9 till the fight was terminated and if your willing to gamble a loss/your career on a couple of a hundredths of a second, more fool him.

The Insider wrote: The fact he was unable to be upright and in a position to defend himself at 9.5 seconds I'm guessing. The only crux of the matter is the time from 9 till the fight was terminated and if your willing to gamble a loss/your career on a couple of a hundredths of a second, more fool him.

But we don't know that because the ref waved it off at 9.3 seconds. It doesn't matter if you're not in a position to defend yourself at 9 seconds if you are at 9.9; those are the rules!

I'm not going to deny Scott was utterly foolish to put himself in that position, but I didn't see any sign he would have been unable to continue had the ref put a full second between 9 and out. Maybe the ref saw something, but I don't know what it would have been and the BBBC's shifty explanation doesn't mention anything either.

Are you sure the count was 9.3 and not 9.5 or 9.7 or 9.1. Where did you start the count from? Was the timekeepers count spot on? Was the refs after he took the count up? Take all this into consideration and then throw in the fact were debating about 5 tenths of a second. Malik has himself to blame. Also it was a tko so it's a bit irrelevant really.

It was a shít stoppage and it was obvious he could / intended to continue and I along with lots of other viewers felt the count was almost a formality before the action resumed...

BUT

...The fact Malik didn't seem remotely bothered afterwards left me thinking "well why should I bother either?" and immediately forgot about it all.

It was definitely much closer to 9 than to 10; I've been playing drums for 10 years, I know which end of a bar a beat falls at! I'm timing it from the pattern of the ref's previous numbers, which is what the boxer's meant to do. The ref didn't give him a full 10 seconds. Again, yes, Malik has himself to blame for rising so late fighting away from home, but the fact is the ref did not put a full second between 9 and 'out' as the rules dictate he do.

I still think Chisora would have finished the job not long afterwards, as Malik was clearly hurt from the temple shot.

"I don't think he can fight for a world title. I think he can WIN IT!" - Barry McGuigan on Richard "The Secret" Williams.

Richard "The Secret" Williams.

dookus wrote:It was definitely much closer to 9 than to 10; I've been playing drums for 10 years, I know which end of a bar a beat falls at! I'm timing it from the pattern of the ref's previous numbers, which is what the boxer's meant to do. The ref didn't give him a full 10 seconds. Again, yes, Malik has himself to blame for rising so late fighting away from home, but the fact is the ref did not put a full second between 9 and 'out' as the rules dictate he do.

I still think Chisora would have finished the job not long afterwards, as Malik was clearly hurt from the temple shot.

We'll have to ask Ginger Baker to back you up but if 2 drum players say so, then it must be so.

The Insider wrote:Are you sure the count was 9.3 and not 9.5 or 9.7 or 9.1. Where did you start the count from? Was the timekeepers count spot on? Was the refs after he took the count up? Take all this into consideration and then throw in the fact were debating about 5 tenths of a second. Malik has himself to blame. Also it was a tko so it's a bit irrelevant really.

I timed it and the fight was stopped at least by 9.2, at which point Scott was close to being erect.

I think it's an equally questionable stoppage if the ref didn't think Scott looked unfit to continue up to nine, but suddenly felt waving the count was merited as Scott started rising steadily, looking more ready to fight than he had during the previous counts.

But I guess I 'really should know better' (or not) if I think the referee erred.

dookus wrote:

The Insider wrote: The fact he was unable to be upright and in a position to defend himself at 9.5 seconds I'm guessing. The only crux of the matter is the time from 9 till the fight was terminated and if your willing to gamble a loss/your career on a couple of a hundredths of a second, more fool him.

But we don't know that because the ref waved it off at 9.3 seconds. It doesn't matter if you're not in a position to defend yourself at 9 seconds if you are at 9.9; those are the rules!

I'm not going to deny Scott was utterly foolish to put himself in that position, but I didn't see any sign he would have been unable to continue had the ref put a full second between 9 and out. Maybe the ref saw something, but I don't know what it would have been and the BBBC's shifty explanation doesn't mention anything either.

i was under the impression you had to be rising at 8 and ready to continue at 10 if you arent even standing at 9.2 then the ref cant check you are ready to continue without giving you longer than the 10 count to recover. How many times have we ever seen a fighter take a knee and not be up by 9?